|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 2:33 PM
Post #26 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
From Truthout: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
by Michael Dobbs
High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.
Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.
The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
Seem like we had a hand in those killing in 1987 & 1988.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 20, 2005, 2:45 PM
Post #27 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Curoiusly though, why was it okay for Clinton to send troops in during his administration, yet it's NOT okay for Bush..?
It wasn't OK with me. I felt very strongly that the EU should have handled Bosnia. Still do.
The only way to conquer and control an unwilling nation is with the iron boot. Someday we're going to understand that wars of conquest are not consistent with a democracy. Simply put, we are too nice to pull it off.
We can't save the world from itself and save the world from us at the same time.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jul 20, 2005, 2:55 PM
Post #29 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Also, when an Iraqi civilian picks up an RPG and fires it at my friend, he's no longer a civilian. When his buddy runs out into the street to pick it up from his now defunct friend and tries to reload it, he's also no longer a civilian. The death toll does not account for non-uniformed combatants.
What was it that our eloquent commander and chief said about that...... oh yeah:
Bring 'em on!
Standing in a public marketplace trading fire with hostiles that are indistinguishable from friendlies and victims is not a good war fighting strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 20, 2005, 2:55 PM
Post #30 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Uberdb, I neither said that Bush personally nor US soldiers in general had killed 25,000 Iraqis. I simply said they had been killed, in the context of comparing body count.
You said they would not have died if Bush hadn't started the war, and thus their deaths are because of Bush. Same thing.
In reply to: Your portrayal of US forces as pure saints who never, ever commit crimes is very strange.
And your portrayal of US soldiers as torturers, cold blooded killers of women and children, and heartless automatons is about the most offensive thing I've ever read. You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 2:58 PM
Post #31 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000 Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm] 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam. US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders 180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal 60,000 Shiites in 1991 50,000 misc. others executed "Human rights officials" est.: 500,000 Iraqi politicians: over a million [These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]
Here's the source. Not sure if it has a particular bias.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 3:13 PM
Post #32 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Oh dear.
The article you referenced gets its data from this report, which is a publication by Human Rights Watch, detailing point-by-point why the Iraqi invasion is a breach of Humanitarian Law and can in no way be justified as a humanitarian intervention. It also doesn't actually quote the figures it uses.
This article definitely does not support your case.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 20, 2005, 3:21 PM
Post #33 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
Are there any statistics on how many suicide bombings were taking place in Iraq before the war started?
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Jul 20, 2005, 3:38 PM
Post #35 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
In reply to: In reply to: Curoiusly though, why was it okay for Clinton to send troops in during his administration, yet it's NOT okay for Bush..? It wasn't OK with me. I felt very strongly that the EU should have handled Bosnia. Still do. DMT |
|
|
|
|
macherry
Jul 20, 2005, 3:42 PM
Post #36 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
In reply to: In reply to: You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting? No, I don't. And in what way are my freedoms protected by invading a country that presented no threat to me?
as much as i stay away from such threads, i just had to wade in. Reno, that is such an old and tired argument to drag out.......... once again. I agree with trad.
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Jul 20, 2005, 3:45 PM
Post #37 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: You serve in the military? Or do you just sit and bask in the freedoms they protect and spew forth your protesting? No, I don't. And in what way are my freedoms protected by invading a country that presented no threat to me? as much as i stay away from such threads, i just had to wade in. Reno, that is such an old and tired argument to drag out.......... once again. I agree with trad.
Is but a small reason that I left military service.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 20, 2005, 4:04 PM
Post #38 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Oh dear. The article you referenced gets its data from this report, which is a publication by Human Rights Watch, detailing point-by-point why the Iraqi invasion is a breach of Humanitarian Law and can in no way be justified as a humanitarian intervention. It also doesn't actually quote the figures it uses. This article definitely does not support your case.
The only case I've been addressing here involves factual accuracy of death toll data.
You can save that red herring for future trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #39 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
A LOT of spewing going on here from people who really have no clue as to what's going on over there...
Yep, 25,000 deaths. I believe it. When I was there, I saw death everywhere I looked. I came damn close to it myself on a few occasions. I lost some very close friends there -- two Americans, two Iraqis. And more since I've come home. Death is very much a way of life there.
What you see on the news is representative of only a small part of what's going on there. I believe it's both much worse and much better. What you don't see is the hate and anger in the eyes of the people as you drive around. You don't see the numbers of soldiers wounded every day. You don't see the corporate profiteering. You also don't see the village that has clean water for the first time ever, nor do you see the elderly couple that has a new home, or the new sewer system that keeps raw sewage off the streets. All you see is the aftermath of the attacks, a twisted car, some blood, and a man or woman grieving over their dead child or relative. And you see a number: 25,000. It means nothing, until you really understand what's going on over there.
Believe me, I'm not saying that we should be there... and I'm not saying we shouldn't. I, unfortunately, am a cog in the machine, and I do what I'm told. Regardless of whether I agree or not.
What fires me up is when someone who knows nothing about what's happening there starts pontificating about why we're there, or why we shouldn't be there. Saddam killed all those people... No blood for oil... Weapons of mass destruction... 25,000 dead... It's all bullshit, because you know nothing. I can't tell you what it's really like, and I hope you don't have to experience it. Just don't pretend to have the answers, because you don't. None of us do.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 4:17 PM
Post #40 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Seabee, do you think nobody here has ever seen a war except you?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 20, 2005, 4:18 PM
Post #41 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: which actually makes your point solidify my statement! ;)
If you say so chief. I don't even know what your point was really. I don't approve of invading other countries without provocation and direct threat. I don't care what political affiliation such leaders might hold. We shouldn't do it because our form of government won't allow the iron boot necessary to pull it off.
Whenever I hear a neocon debate the positive merits of tactical nuclear weapons I sense another nail in the coffin of democracy.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 4:19 PM
Post #42 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
OK, Tradman, I'll bite. What war have you seen?
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jul 20, 2005, 4:27 PM
Post #43 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
I'm not trying to start a pissing contest seabee, and I wasn't just talking about myself. You'll find there are vietnam vets, gulf war vets and plenty of otheres here, some of whom share your point of view, some of whom don't. To say that we all know nothing says a lot about you and not much about us.
Me, yeah I've seen war. It's not very nice, and it's not worth talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
uberdb
Jul 20, 2005, 4:41 PM
Post #44 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 77
|
I'm not going to get into the numbers game, I'm sure everyone on both side of this argument can find someone who is publishing the sort of numbers to support their argument. The original source was qouted on this thread was a US-UK "non-governmental" agency. Being an unofficial agency, I personally would question the veracity of their claims, but in an era lacking unbiased media coverage, its up to each of us to find our own sources that we believe.
However, going back to earlier statements (about US forces torturing, murdering and raping people). These acts, on the rare (but oh so well publicized) incidents when they happen are investigated and punished accordingly. Keep in mind the sheer scale and number of people involved in operations over there. We have half a million people over there right now ! Keeping in mind that a vast majority of these servicemembers are young, away from home for long periods of time, scared, angry for fallen friends, and very aware that a percentage of the population desires nothing more than their gruesome death, and I think that while such instances are deplorable, you'd be beyond niave to think they won't happen at all. Unlike most forces though, we certainly don't sponsor such behavior and perpetrators are dealt with accordingly.
However, back here at home, there is Rape, Murder and Torture (spousal and child abuse), as there is anywhere else. I'm sure if someone were to go through the statistics and compare US forces to any other segment of anyone's population, I'm sure you'd find our rape/torture statistics to be incredibly low. The media blows the few incidents out of proportion to the scale of the effort underway. As to the murder claim, it's a debatable definition during a time a war. Premeditated, right ? "Hey, if he picks up that AK, you pop him." Premeditated and yet fully legal. Of course US forces aren't saints, they are just people. Trained, disciplined, motivated but still just people, there are going to be a few bad ones.
Speaking of bad ones, I'd have to say that while the stuff that was going down at Abu Ghraib was unjustifiable and uncalled for, I'd certainly much rather be stripped, led around like a dog and photographed naked then being beaten continiously for days and then be beheaded with a dull knife on video ... (I've seen the whole thing .... THAT will make you sick to your stomach)
But, to the point of "does that justify the war ?". No, none of that does. What does justify the war is that we are rebuilding their country with civil and infrastructure projects and allowing them (including those that NEVER had a voice in their government) to move toward self rule. I understand the concept of sanctity of life, how it is a precious gift and apparently you do to ... Their former regime and indeed, a certain part of the lifestyle over does not (while not having been to Iraq, I have been to the middle east). On another thread, there's a discussion over park rangers / Camp 4 climbers ... under Saddam's regime, he would have beatten/tortured/shot them, wiped his hands and said "next?". There are so many well-meaning service members over there struggling to make a positive difference in the lives of average Iraqis, and actually succeding. The desired endstate, at this point, is to allow the Iraqis, all Iraqis, to lead happier, healthier, more productive lives freed from political and religious oppression and constant threat of violence and death. I think that's a worthy goal.
DB
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 4:43 PM
Post #45 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Just don't pretend to have the answers, because you don't. None of us do.
You hit the nail on the head.
Our leaders invaded Iraq, putting thousands of Americans lives in harm way without a plan or anwsers. Pretty sad.
I quess that a good reason why 48 per-cent of Americans don't trust Bush!
|
|
|
|
|
seabee
Jul 20, 2005, 4:47 PM
Post #46 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 136
|
War sucks. I think that's something that we can all agree on.
And I'm not saying that I'm the only one here that knows anything about it. But how much can you say you know, if your only source is the news media?
That's like making a judgment on a climb based only on the topo. Go climb it, and then tell me what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jul 20, 2005, 5:03 PM
Post #48 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Hey Tradman, ever think about a job at the New York Times? You'd fit in well.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 20, 2005, 5:07 PM
Post #49 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Seabee- Take a few hits in the head with a hammer and tell me if hurts or not.
I don't think you need to be there to know that this war was wrong from the start!
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Jul 20, 2005, 5:09 PM
Post #50 of 146
(3813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: Me, yeah I've seen war. It's not very nice, and it's not worth talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
